‘Moronic’: Edinburgh Council to make changes to bizarre zig-zag cycle lane after social media backlash

I'm sure your explanation is correct but actually we've missed the elephant again.  The reason this is done this way is to provide a tram bypass around the bus when it is stopped. This is entirely a design choice.  Sounds sensible of course - we want to keep the trams flowing.  But then wait - the trams will stop to let people out.  And if "capacity" is an issue why do we have both trams and buses (both directions) here?  And look at the space higlighted - for vehicles on right, unused space between tram tracks centre (image below).

It's all choices.  The tram issue here is complicated by poor decisions by the council.  Decisions both in the large e.g. wild overoptimism about costs, belief that we could get a tram network in short order.  Also the detail e.g. locking in certain kinds of power cable supports necessitating a central space between tracks - possibly due to a "we're going to get this tram to Newhaven no matter what cost..."

Compare what they've produced - which to be fair is relatively advanced for the UK - with how you should do it:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/riding-around-the-bus-stop/

...and you'll see that the main design concerns in the UK version are the familiar "don't hold up motor vehicle traffic" and "slow down those dangerous cyclists!"  Just look at the widths of the Dutch cycle lanes and the radii where they do turn. Remember - this is Edinburgh council * who've long form in assuming they understands cyclists' requirements (and those of the trams for that matter) very well thank you while seeking minimal external advice and guidance.

* Sustrans are / were fairly chummy with the council.  Although problematic in the past they now seem to be saying / writing things which get it right.  So maybe they're helping here?

 "But how will any traffic flow without otherwise?" comes the question.  This is a reasonable observation but has its own assumptions.
- Having carried out all these alterations (disrupting traffic on this road for years...) and this being a "street" (e.g. a "place" in Edinburgh's language - "people centric") somehow it's still vital to have two-way traffic 24/7 here - bus AND tram?  But if not what could be an alternative?  Well bus gate solutions for one were proposed.
- Flow is important - but it was accepted that the trams stop traffic for a fairly long period to cross at several points to the south (Picardy place, Princes Street).  Yes - shorter than bus passenger loading but a relatively long phase.
- Passenger boarding will take too long - however there's nothing to stop Edinburgh Council telling Lothian buses to speed up passenger boarding by employing a conductor to do ticketing *after* people have boarded - just like the tram!  Several cities have "bendy buses" - essentially tram/bus hybrids.  These are not without their own issues but they're clearly not totally unviable.

Final post - reference:

The location of the photo (it's looking north) in Google maps.

The current plan by the council:

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/tramstonewhaven/downloads/file/549/final-landscaping-designs

matthewn5 wrote:

The zig-zags (albeit less extreme, see point above) are standard practice for floating bus stops with the intention of slowing cycle traffic where there may be people milling around.

I'd suggest if you're slowing cycle traffic to the extent of the number of zigzags shown here, you've essentially made it not worth putting in a cycle track in the first place.

mdavidford wrote:

matthewn5 wrote:

The zig-zags (albeit less extreme, see point above) are standard practice for floating bus stops with the intention of slowing cycle traffic where there may be people milling around.

I'd suggest if you're slowing cycle traffic to the extent of the number of zigzags shown here, you've essentially made it not worth putting in a cycle track in the first place.

Don't forget - the "model" for cycling is normally "not very many cyclists, on one shape of bicycle, in single file.  They'll be riding at a speed that many people without stabilisers would struggle to stay upright yet somehow without wobbling as we've given them a narrow space.  Also they're quite happy to stop more often than people on foot as they'll be giving way to trams, cars and pedestrians".

I am very pleased that Edinburgh is starting to see cycle infra not just as a "maybe" add-on.  That in itself is remarkable for the UK.  Component parts of the design are clearly "good" e.g. low, forgiving kerbs. Where they could do much better is to take advice from people who understand (transport) cycling in the round. Make no mistake - each time any new development comes up spending anything - and certainly more than a fiver - on bikes is a huge battle.  Every time.  Given that it's important to get the maximum value out of those battles.

The UK is still fundamentally ignorant about the basics of cycling as transport.  Cyclists are neither slow cars nor fast pedestrians - they have their own requirements.  It's not a good idea to mix cyclists and pedestrians in the same space - but pedestrians crossing cycle paths isn't the big drama that crossing roads is.  Making cyclists stop (rather than slow) is a real barrier.  We need networks, not just a scheme here and there.  There must be a place to store your bike both where you start and at your destination.

Changed, yes - but if I'm reading the comment about 'noticeably flatten[ing] out the line' right, they're not actually proposing to remove the zigzags - just to round off the corners a bit. So it'll still be rubbish - just a bit less rubbish than it is at the moment.

They could bank the corners like a berm, that might be fun?!

HoarseMann wrote:

They could bank the corners like a berm, that might be fun?!

i usually hate what passes for 'cycling infrastructure' but that's an idea I can really get behind!  

The lamp posts are due to be removed - the street lighting will be in the middle of the road but the old lamp posts can't be removed until it's in place.

However, the rest of it is pretty much as planned - an absolute mess.

I was just about to write the same thing. Absolutely madness that someone has approved a scheme that isn't fit for purpose and those in charge of the budget have mitigated it by saying that it's all going to be ripped up anyway. As an Edinburgh resident and cyclist, albeit one that isn't likely to use that route much, I'm livid that I have part-funded this nonsense. 

Alessandro, good point well made. As a fellow resident I share your annoyance at my cooncil tax funding this waste of money thru inbuilt rework.
Contractors must be delighted to get a contract from the clowncil knowing they'll screw us for add ons.

Having thrown shade on this previously I guess it's possible that some of this is a consequence of "path dependence" / uncertainties in scheduling and needing to have some things that "work".  So a) the lampposts have been explained - I'd accept that. b) Replacing the surface of the cycle path might be needed anyway because of the timing for shifting the posts.  So maybe the idea was better to have *something* there until then.

However even being charitable I can't explain the stupid wiggles.  They're "planned" / "real" because they've definitely baked those in with kerbs / edging etc. Were they concessions to parking / refuse containers / utilities access that "we can't move"?  I know the street does change width somewhat and it's true it's a major pedestrian way in parts.  I guess whatever the smaller answers the real issue is there is still space guaranteed for motor vehicle access in both directions.  This was a choice.  A major argument for the tram was "capacity".  However it won't replace the buses - in part because the massive underestimate of costs meant we don't have the (dream) tram network just a line.  Trams can help (when combined with bikes!).  I think these issues could be managed (shops want loading access, we want buses through here).  But despite boldly spending vast sums and causing massive disruption for years they couldn't be more radical on motoring.

Oh - and for anyone who's not been the side street crossings look like a mess.

Less the tarmac, what about the custom fitted slab work?

Surely being Edinburgh, the cycle route should pointlessly cross the tramrails at a foolishly shallow angle?

ktache wrote:

Less the tarmac, what about the custom fitted slab work?

Surely being Edinburgh, the cycle route should pointlessly cross the tramrails at a foolishly shallow angle?

As someone who lives here (albeit not in the centre) this is both totally normal and also unusual.  Normal parts:

• Consultations but the amount anything will be changed is strictly limited.  Everything appears to be treated as "opinion" e.g. just because the cycling group is making some points related to cycling that's no more relevant than the opinion of a motoring group on that or indeed Jock Tamson of the Calton.
• Stuff takes ages to get and when it appears it's neither what was "agreed" (or at least understood by lobby groups) nor actually entirely fit for purpose.
• There is then a rush of complaints from *everyone*.  The council is correct here that they get always get abuse.  Some is even from drivists who almost certainly new about this in advance but have another crack when they notice a change.
• Council takes to the media to robustly defend the indefensible.
• There's generally some rebuilding or repainting - quietly - to try to take the edges off.
• All the above definitely wastes a notable fraction of the monies for the project.

What's unusual here:

• A Scottish Conservative not appearing to immediately pan cycling / fewer cars as the cause of all woe.  Although I'm actually a little unclear what she actually means here.
• The council may actually fix things before the project's finished.  Probably only the case because it's taking so long.

chrisonatrike wrote:

What's unusual here:

• A Scottish Conservative not appearing to immediately pan cycling / fewer cars as the cause of all woe.  Although I'm actually a little unclear what she actually means here.

The leaflet from the Conservative candidate in my ward has three ward-specific pledges above the usual list of platitudes that they all have. One is to remove a cycle lane. The second is to remove an LTN. The third is to oppose permits for parking, to conserve freedom/ allow the current free for all with pavement parking rife.

So as per usual, the things that they want to conserve smell of oil.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

The council’s transport convenor Lesley Macinnes has defended the project and confirmed that changes will be made to the path’s layout before it is completed

Hang on!  So they laid all that shiny new tarmac in stupid sharp zig-zags, knowing full well that they intended to change it all before it opened for use?  I'm not sure that's any better... 

When you see the amount of waste in the tram projects to date you could have done the city centre in full-dutch cycle infra and snuck that by in the margins of the overall budget.